The Existence of the LGBTQ+ Community Within Nazi Ideology

The
Holocaust is perceived as indiscriminate in its systematic persecution against
members of minority groups. Millions of fatalities of innocent civilians across
Nazi conquest territory of WWII alludes to its unwavering hatred of those that
did not fit social norms of that era. However, modern intersectionality has caused dissonance within the public
and scholarly reaction to the LGBTQ+ population in relation to sociocultural
values of the Nazi era. A German mural paying homage to the deaths of gay men
has been criticized for its exclusion of lesbian women, who faced violence from
the Nazi party. Academia is divided – many scholars suggest that Nazis had far
stricter laws for gay men than lesbian women and therefore they should be
excluded as their plight was far less brutal. Other academics find it absurd
that they are excluded, for they faced persecuted as a full stop. These
scholars choose to not look at persecution as a gradient or by levels, but by
acknowledging that persecution is unsavoury regardless of the volume.

For this response, the language used is now
observed to be obviously incorrect and offensive. With ease, this response
denounces the derogatory connotations used, especially concerning
“transvestite” and “masculine presenting women.”

The
author focuses on one particular case study of Ilse Totzke, a German lesbian
woman. Not only was she a more “masculine” presenting woman, but scrutinized
for her fraternization with Jewish people. This one facet of her life is drawn
upon immensely – the author suggests that because she was a “masculine” female,
she was already under scrutiny but it was her willingness to interact with Jews
that solidified suspicion. The position
the author takes on this matter is that while lesbianism was illegal, it was
not as rigorously enforced under the stipulation that the lesbian person in
question was not deviating away from other norms. The dichotomy of what
constituted a “proper” German during the Holocaust is rife with dissonance,
especially towards members of the LGBTQ+ community. Being a gay man was
unchallengedly illegal, however lesbian women and “transvestites (those who
presented as male but were female)” had fewer systematic barriers and law. For
this reason, the author suggests Totzke could have lived a quite existence
during the Holocaust even though she was in the company of Jewish peoples
assuming she did not present physically how she did. The author continued
passed the Totzke case study to examine the flippant laws between countries
under the same jurisdiction – Austria had specific anti-lesbian laws, however
Germany did not; “moral endangerment” of a minor under 16 was illegal as well
as being “asocial (however there is no rigorous definition of asocial that the
author provides).” The Gestapo could put anyone under protective custody en
route to a concentration camp for seemingly no proper reason. The Nazi regime
operated, seemingly, under arbitrary law that suited particular cases instead
of particular people.

The author makes compelling arguments,
however, employs few statistics but opts more for anecdotes and witness
testimony. While these insights are valuable in formulating a robust
understanding of the moral hierarchy and dichotomy of the Nazi era, it does not
provide an entire scope about lesbianism and perception of lesbian women of
this time.